Mformation software technologies

Post Valuation. Last Financing Details. The company is a provider of mobile and Internet of Things securi. Woodbridge Township, NJ.

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut. Cambridge, MA. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla. Cupertino, CA.

Add Comparison. Mformation Software Technologies Competitors Mformation Software Technologies Patents. Mformation Software Technologies Board Members Mformation Software Technologies Signals.

Growth Rate 0. Weekly Growth 0. Size Multiple x Median. Key Data Points Twitter Followers 5. Similarweb Unique Visitors Majestic Referring Domains Mformation Software Technologies Former Investors. Mformation Software Technologies Exits 2. Contact Us info pitchbook. Terms of Use Privacy Policy. We agree with BlackBerry and, therefore, conclude that the district court did not change its claim construction post-verdict. Rather, the district court at most clarified its previous construction that was already present in the jury instructions.

In the section of the jury instructions where the district court describes the "establishing a connection" sub-step, the district court explains that the use of the phrase "connection is established" found in the "wherein" clause means that a connection must not only be initiated, but must be "made by the server with the wireless device.

Then, in the next section, the instructions discuss the transmitting sub-step. A logical reading of these instructions would be that the substep discussed in the first section of the jury instructions must be completed before moving on to the next section discussing a separate sub-step.

Further, we note that this case is very similar to Cordis. In Cordis, we stated that "[t]he district court's post-verdict elaboration on this point only clarified what was inherent in the construction. Doing so was not error; it merely made plain what This is also the case here, as the jury instructions explained that 1 the "wherein" clause was "a further limitation" on the "establishing a connection" sub-step; and 2 the phrase "is established" in that clause means that a "connection must not only be initiated, but must be made.

It is inherent in those instructions that, to complete the "establishing a connection" sub-step, the connection must be "established," and that must happen before the transmitting sub-step begins.

We now turn to the issue of whether claim 1 of the ' patent requires that a connection be completely established before transmission. As a general rule, "[u]nless the steps of a method [claim] actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one. Compuserve Inc. However, a claim "requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires" an order of steps.

TALtech Ltd. Esquel Apparel, Inc. Google, Inc. On appeal, Mformation challenges the district court's construction. It argues that the patentee's use of "ing" in "establishing a connection between the wireless device and the server" conveys that formation of the connection is in progress, rather than completed.

And Mformation adds that the wherein clause does not specifically dictate when the connection must be established; it only requires that a connection eventually be established. Further, the word "established" is distant from the "establishing a connection" sub-step. According to Mformation, this serves as evidence that completely establishing a connection is not required before transmission. See Credle v. Bond, 25 F. Thus, Mformation claims that the point of the "wherein" limitation was to define the subset of factors that could trigger the establishment of the connection-not to create rigid step-ordering requirements.

BlackBerry responds that the result of performing the "establishing a connection" sub-step is necessarily that a connection is "established.

According to BlackBerry, if the "establishing a connection" sub-step were not temporally distinct from the transmitting sub-step and prior to it , there would be no reason to specify a separate sub-step for establishing a connection at all, as it is inherently part of transmitting a command. BlackBerry also points to a passage in the specification that contains the only description of the "establishing a connection" sub-step:.

We agree with the district court and BlackBerry that claim 1 requires that a connection be established before transmission. We are persuaded by BlackBerry's argument that the separate sub-step for establishing a connection would become "superfluous" if we concluded that a connection did not have to be established completed before transmission. That is because, under such construction of the claim, establishing a connection is necessarily encompassed in transmitting a command.

See Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. Int'l Game Tech. Further, we note that other sub-steps in claim 1 inherently require an order-of-steps. As a matter of logic, a mailbox must be established before the contents of said mailbox can be transmitted. See Oral Arg. And while it is true that "we have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment," Phillips v.

AWH Corp. See ' patent col. Mformation argues that there is still substantial evidence of infringement because BlackBerry's BES software need not create the communication channel itself but, rather, could use an existing wireless communication channel. And Mformation claims to have presented ample evidence at trial that, before the start of the "transmitting" sub-step, the BES software selects an existing wireless communication channel that allows a server to communicate with a remote device.

Consequently, Mformation claims that a reasonable juror could find that the accused products establish a connection between the BES software and the wireless device before commencement of the "transmitting" sub-step. We disagree. As the district court noted, Mformation's expert based his infringement opinion on his understanding that the claims do not require a connection to be established between the server and the wireless device before transmission.

Based on his mistaken view, Mformation's expert testified that the "establishing a connection" sub-step is satisfied by: 1 the BES software "packaging the command in the GME protocol"; and 2 a component of the BES software determining whether to transmit that GME message via cellular or Wi-Fi.

However, both of these actions occur entirely within the BES software installed on a company server. Neither preparing a GME message nor determining how to transmit that message results in establishing a connection between the BES software and a BlackBerry device, as the claim requires.

In other words, selecting a path for a wireless connection is not the equivalent of establishing a wireless connection. The belief that customer satisfaction is as important as their products and services, have helped this establishment garner a vast base of customers, which continues to grow by the day. This business employs individuals that are dedicated towards their respective roles and put in a lot of effort to achieve the common vision and larger goals of the company.

In the near future, this business aims to expand its line of products and services and cater to a larger client base. Company Hours of Operations. Monday 9. Request Quote Report Incorrect. Sign Up to Connect With Companies. Use Enhanced Filtered Search options.